July 25, 2010

The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce not only didn’t bother to Google, they weren’t familiar enough with civil rights history to recognize the name Sherrod. And they didn’t return the calls and e-mail of prominent blacks who tried to alert them that something was wrong....

The president appears completely comfortable in his own skin, but it seems he feels that he and Michelle are such a huge change for the nation to absorb that he can be overly cautious about pushing for other societal changes for blacks and gays.

(Gays! Where did that come from?)

His closest advisers — some of the same ones who urged him not to make the race speech after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue exploded — are so terrified that Fox and the Tea Party will paint Obama as doing more for blacks that they tiptoe around and do less. “Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official....

“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” [Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina,] told me. “He needs some black people around him.” He said Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race: “Some people over there are not sensitive at all about race. They really feel that the extent to which he allows himself to talk about race would tend to pigeonhole him or cost him support, when a lot of people saw his election as a way to get the issue behind us. I don’t think people elected him to disengage on race. Just the opposite.”

Dowd ends by recommending that Obama hire Shirley Sherrod for a newly created position called "Director of Black Outreach."

Now and then we should purge words from the English language. I nominate "outreach."

"I don’t think people elected him to disengage on race. Just the opposite." Aiiieeee!

And may I ask: why do we need someone with civil rights cred in the USDA? Talk about mission creep. Shut the bloody agency down and start it back up when someone comes up with some ideas about a useful role for the federal government in agriculture again.

I've been saying this for 2 years. The Zero is the whitest white guy to ever live in the you-know-what-color House.

He had no problem shoving Rev Wright under the bus and he had no problem doing it to Shirley Sherrod (who, the more we find out about her, should have gotten the sack anyway). He will go against the Leftist-cultivated idea that you don't turn your back on a brother(/sister) because that's the Chicago Way, politics above all else.

This is a guy who grew up in an upscale, lily white, Leftist milieu and that's where his loyalties lie. His connection with most black people is the same as that with most white people - did you go to Haavahd, are you a bud of William Ayers, etc.

PS As I said before, the Bushes (and I don't mean Dubya and Laura, I mean George and Barbara) have more soul than The Zero.

PPS As I said before, if there wasn't any pushback from Shirley Sherrod's criticism of him, this is the opening gun of his black support drifting away.

"a lot of people saw his election as a way to get the issue behind us. I don’t think people elected him to disengage on race. Just the opposite.”

Anything contradictory about that?

The way to get beyond race is to get beyond it - as in stop looking back all the time. That is the only thing preventing progress, but the truth is liberals don't want to get beyond it. They just want to control it's use. That's what the whole current political battle is about; who will control the race card. The left sees it's grip on it starting to slip and is in a panic about it..

Just like Sam Phillips of Sun Records was searching for that white guy who sounded black, the media and the Democrats had been searching for that black guy who sounded white. They discovered Obama. It's white liberals who put Obama where he is today. Obama knew he could use their "white guilt" to his advantage. He used it to move ever higher without any real accomplishments. So now he trips over race instead of inspiring on race according to Dowd. When, in his life, did he ever inspire on race?

“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?”

I did.

It was utterly predictable that unless the first black POTUS was near perfect, this is precisely what was going to happen. And there was a probability approaching zero that Obabma would be a near perfect POTUS.

Well, I finally followed the Professor's link and got back to the full NAACP tape and Breitbart's posting. There are two clips from the tape in Breitbart's post, both are excerpts that illustrates Breitbart's points, and I do not understand that unless the full tape was posted on YouTube to start with. So, either I misunderstood that part or there was something else going on here too.

As for the full tape, it is a powerful personal story that Ms. Sherrod told to give her audience the background to what she was telling them. She did make some partisan political remarks, which a Federal employee most certainly is not supposed to do (the Hatch Act), but really not all that bad, and given her background, I think both understandable and forgiveable.

As for her encouragement for the young people in her audience to seek employment with the USDA and/or apply for USDA programs; well, we conservatives do not like that, but that is indeed something that the USDA expects her to do. It is part of her job.

Which still leaves me puzzled and curious about the reaction of the national NAACP and, even more so, the Administration.

So I was wrong on the details bandied about on this story, but I was right that the real story is not about Shirley Sherrod, who turns out to be perfectly all right, or even Breitbart, but about the NAACP and Administration's panicky reactions, and I still suspect there is something other than race connected to this.

...weren’t familiar enough with civil rights history to recognize the name Sherrod.

But is there any relationship between Shirley Sherrod, USDA appointee, and Charles Sherrod, pioneering civil rights leader? If Dowd knows, she doesn't make it plain what it is. And if there is, should it matter?

I myself don't care that the name "Sherrod" is supposed to be well known in Black History circles; is Dowd trying to say that Sherrod should get a pass because she has the same last name as someone of minor note?

And all of that assumes that the demand for Sherrod's resignation didn't originate at the Resolution Desk in the Oval Office.

He could always call NASA and tell them to work on things that promote self esteem in black people.

:-P

This is ridiculous... well, Dowd is ridiculous, but since when isn't that true?

But look at what she's saying in the quoted bit... look at it.

Obama needs black people around him because of their blackness... not their skills, or expertise or anything else.

Maybe this is why someone like Condi Rice isn't considered "black". Maybe it's because she's not there *because* she is black. And if it's not because of her blackness, then her blackness doesn't count. But Obama, he needs to be surrounded by color for the sake of color. Because color has nothing else to offer, or what?

The only way that the speed at which Sherrod was fired can be about color is what Rev said the other day... that the accusation was SO believable that no one doubted it for a moment. Otherwise Sherrod, treated in a race-blind manner should have been afforded normal considerations... asked about the event at the least before being fired.

Viewed through race, well, Sherrod can't be allowed to reflect badly on everyone else even for a moment (and yes, this is the standard the NAACP was promoting for the Tea Parties) and she's got to go now. That I think she's as guilty of viewing the world through race as any racist out there, the solution to the problem is to treat her like a *person* instead of a representative and symbol. If she had been treated like a person *first* then her boss and the administration would have not made the mistake that they made.

I am always impressed by how truly incompetent Obama is. He hides from almost every difficult issue, likely because at some level he knows his limitations and he doesn't want to be blamed. The Gulf spill is a perfect example.

But, he's really not that smart, now is he. You would not need dozen more black people--with the richness of their experience, if you had one smart black president.

That Morgan Freeman piece is wonderful.Affirmative-action-thinking, which mandates racial privlege andracial entitelement, and which requires and is founded upon racial resentment and grievance, is the prinicpal cause of racial difficulties today.

"I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, Obama had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building"

Breitbart's original contention remains true that the audience at the NAACP function or dinner did laugh and murmur some not-so-funny things in the edited clip.

Motor-monkeys like Howard Dean and Van Jones later have to come back to the old script, which ignores the fact that 90% of white racists until very recently were Democrats, including perhaps the "white farmer" being referred to so often.

The lack of any restraint by the shrill Democratic media/agitprop lackeys shows how panicked they are. It's their version of once more using the "big smear" they used to whine about concerning Sen. Joe McCarthy, who was an absolute gentleman compared to Howard Dean, et al.

I for one await Anderson Cooper's plangent tones assessing the situation.

"Stachmo practically hugged me. Muddy Waters made me want to get up and dance.

And, Chuck Berry! He was the very soul of outreach!"

And I keep on screaming to help me go at this stuff through music because,..oh, forget it.

One other thing:

Did anyone else catch that John Lewis said Shirley Sherrod doesn't have a racist bone in her body - even after we know she's an unrepentent racist? And how does that fit in with her husband's historic role in the civil rights movement?

"But is there any relationship between Shirley Sherrod, USDA appointee, and Charles Sherrod, pioneering civil rights leader?...I myself don't care that the name "Sherrod" is supposed to be well known in Black History circles; is Dowd trying to say that Sherrod should get a pass because she has the same last name as someone of minor note?"

OMFG.

They are married.

The Albany Movement was a historically significant development in MLK's civil rights work. Newsreel footage from MLK's time in Albany is in _Eyes on the Prize_.

Charles Sherrod was the leader of that movement. He met with President Kennedy, ect.

MoDo isn't a deep thinker, but she still retains a micro-ounce of journalistic ethos, unlike the majority of her NYT Op-Ed colleagues. She knows Breitbart was focussing on the reaction to Sherrod's nasty edited remarks, racist reactions that display the hypocrisy of the NAACP calling anyone else "racist."

Isn't Dowd saying Obama, "our FIRST Black President", is not Black enough? Obama needs an infusion of real Blacks to work with him on race issues. And in truth Obama did not live through the civil rights era in the South.He can give a speech on RACE but cannot "feel" what real full-blooded African Americans do and so cannot react to race issues appropriately.

Or maybe Clinton was the First Black President and Clinton might be able to advise the NOT BLACK ENOUGH President on race matters.

In 1997, then Agriculture Secretary Glickman and sources predicted that, at most, 3,000 might qualify for awards under the Pigford case.

That's 3,000 black farmers who were may have been discriminated against by the USDA between 1981-1985 (as settled by the Clinton administration). Unfortunately, settlements in this case were made to 16,000 black farmers (5x the original estimate). In addition, congress settled Pigford II and made payments to an additional 80,000 black farmers in 2010 to the tune of $1.15B.

That's $2B to 100,000 black farmers who claimed racial discrimination from 1981-1985. The case was led in large part by Shirley and her husband. At the end of it, after the settlement, she was given a government job (something she has told her audience is the best kind of job of all).

"But is there any relationship between Shirley Sherrod, USDA appointee, and Charles Sherrod, pioneering civil rights leader?... I myself don't care that the name "Sherrod" is supposed to be well known in Black History circles; is Dowd trying to say that Sherrod should get a pass because she has the same last name as someone of minor note?"

OMFG.

They are married.

The Albany Movement was a historically significant development in MLK's civil rights work. Newsreel footage from MLK's time in Albany is in _Eyes on the Prize_.

Charles Sherrod was the leader of that movement. He met with President Kennedy, ect.

He is also one of the founders of SNCC and another one of William Ayers' best buds. There's a good bit of bitter to go with the sweet.

Martha said...

Isn't Dowd saying Obama, "our FIRST Black President", is not Black enough? Obama needs an infusion of real Blacks to work with him on race issues. And in truth Obama did not live through the civil rights era in the South.

This is the first thing the Lefty mafia hits you with if you're black and they don't like what you're saying/doing. I'd say The Zero will be lucky if he lasts long enough in office to contemplate the '12 primary season.

You Big Lie guys are impressive in your persistence. But by your logic, Charles Sherrod and other civil rights activists also believes the paranoid, racist conspiracy theories that his wife has been sharing recently:

Sherrod:"I don't think [Breitbart]'s interested in seeing anyone get past it because I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he'd like to see all black people end up again. And that's why I think he's so vicious."

and

Sherrod:"They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

I don't buy your logic that Shirley Sherrod should be respected merely for her proximity to actual civil rights activists, because that same logic would dictate that real civil rights activists should be considered as nutty and delusional as the woman spouting these bizarre birther/truther-level ravings by their proximity to her.

She is a standalone paranoid racist nutjob speaking for no one but herself.

Can you name any sane civil rights activists who spend their time trying to foment racial strife?

I know about Shirley Sherrod's racist rants (see above), and the lunatic raving about the need to kill cracker babies, and of course the toxic Reverend "White folks' greed runs a world in need" Wright, but are you arguing these extremist, belligerent, race-baiting viewpoints have replaced the teaching of Reverend King's as the heart of the civil rights movement?

"Breitbart publishes a lot of stuff every day, and those "West Wing white guys" never reacted like this before.

Something - or rather, somebody - else set them off."

First there was the Skip Gates fiasco, now the Blank Panthers fiasco. It could be as simple as trying to be seen as having zero tolerance for racism. But the left blaming Breitbart instead of the Administration for her firing is asinine.

But if we're sharing our favorite conspiracy theories, I think Bam is orchestrating to pave the way as Great Racial Healer for 2012.

1. No, I’m not aware of any sane civil rights activists who spend their time trying to foment racial strife.2. Re: what you choose to call “paranoid, racist conspiracy theories”: it’s really important to understand people who are coming from places like the Sharrods are coming from in relation to the nature and effects of the experience of individual and collective trauma. The book Traumatic Stress by van der Kolk et al is quite useful in that respect.3. She is nothing remotely like the New Black Panther types or the Jeremiah Wright types.4. It is not “proximity to activists”…she was a soldier. This is like if some WWII vet who led dangerous missions, put his life in danger many times, awarded a purple heart, saw buddies get shot, lost some, was awarded the purple heart, went back to Appalachia to his farm and his home church and everything, worked hard against hard odds, and then gets plucked into the media eye because of somebody’s grave error, and is basically viciously assaulted – and the worst you can say of him is that some of his expressions are quaint or have become politically incorrect in the parts of the country where the elites all live, and he’s got some old-fashioned or eccentric ideas.5. I am sure that not everybody on the left blames Breitbart for her firing. 6. Breitbart is to be blamed though for defamatory representations that led to #4 and also falsely represented an NAACP audience as laughing at racist discrimination. 7. So it’s like if you’re walking down the street and somebody sneaks up on you from behind and hits you upside the head with a two-by-four, and then when you get up he says oops he was looking for somebody else, but refuses to apologize.8. Here is Charles Sharrod on Dr. King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9QgL7WqaVQ9. Again, grouping the Sharrods in with the likes of Jeremiah Wright? The New Black Panthers?!?? SRSLY?????

Shirley Sherrod's "rants" are rather moderate as things go these days; she is not a mean-spirited woman - quite the contrary, which is remarkable given her personal history. And what we are seeing are staged and edited clips from folks who are experts at getting you to say what they want you to say. She had not ought to play along with them, but could you resist if you were in her shoes?

As for Dan Brown theories: If Breitbart is truthful when he says he did not have the full tape, then still somebody with access to the full tape made the clips and posted them on YouTube. When Breitbart picked them up and they went viral, that person would reasonably enough have panicked and taken steps to cover his/her behind and misdirect attention. It is doubtful such a person would have all that much influence at the White House, but he/she might be related to someone who does.

Just spinning off the kerfluffle caused by the kid who hacked the Sarahcuda's e-mail.

AJ Lynch said... "Americans probably prefer we get more "competent" people in power and don't care what color they are as long as they are competent."

Competent? He means to do everything he is doing, and it is not an accident. This is how he overloads the system, ala Alinsky; start a lot of fires at once. He is a Non Allegiant, Non Natural Born (his father was never a citizen, no matter Where Obama 2 was born, thus not Natural Born), ineligible putative President. He was put in power by the cabal of World and Central bank debt-masters to put the final nails in the coffin of the Sovereignty of US citizens. You can whine and complain about him, but you are allowing him to stab the Constitution in the heart by usurping the presidency. He will just push through his agenda, no matter what all the whiners say, until he is stopped, and his admitted dual citizenship at birth is his kryptonite. Unfortunately, inept conservatives fail to use the one thing that will be the end of Obama. Some of them are wolves in sheep's clothing, others are just dumb. Where does it say that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? (HINT: Nowhere)

@nobody:This is like if some WWII vet who led dangerous missions, put his life in danger many times, awarded a purple heart, saw buddies get shot, lost some, was awarded the purple heart, went back to Appalachia to his farm and his home church and everything, worked hard against hard odds, and then gets plucked into the media eye because of somebody’s grave error, and is basically viciously assaulted – and the worst you can say of him is that some of his expressions are quaint or have become politically incorrect in the parts of the country where the elites all live, and he’s got some old-fashioned or eccentric ideas.

For the analogy to hold, you would have to say this old WW II soldier responded to his critics -- after his boss fired him and now tries to save face rehiring him -- is that he says all his critics "are Nazis who want to gas and roast Jews again, like during Hitler's time."

That would make me cringe, and wonder if there wasn't someone better suited to take the public, prominent role in helping the people of Appalachia.

Re: what you choose to call “paranoid, racist conspiracy theories”: it’s really important to understand people who are coming from places like the Sharrods are coming from in relation to the nature and effects of the experience of individual and collective trauma. The book Traumatic Stress by van der Kolk et al is quite useful in that respect.

First, it's Sherrod. Sh-E-rrod. For all the awe and majesty you claim to hold them in, and all the "research" you claim to have done in your effort to beatify them, it's pathetic that you consistently spell their name incorrectly.

Second, what I choose to call "paranoid, racist conspiracy theories" are in fact, paranoid, racist conspiracy theories. Neither Breitbart nor Fox News are plotting the return of slavery, and anyone who claims that they are is a complete nutjob.

Finally, Sherrod does not get excused from her current racism and race-baiting paranoid screeds just because at some time in the past she experienced racism herself.

Again, grouping the Sharrods in with the likes of Jeremiah Wright? The New Black Panthers?!?? SRSLY?????

Yes, "SRSLY!!!!!!" She is a race-baiting lunatic making obnoxious and outlandish claims:

Sherrod: "I don't think [Breitbart]'s interested in seeing anyone get past it because I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery."Sherrod: "[Fox] would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

The Racial races are put on for sport and for profit. The highly profitable intermediary's position, like that of the UN's position, is entirely dependent on the existence of a conflict or potential of violent schism. So as lawyers brag about protecting folks, the protection is only needed because of a stirred up conflict. The story goes that one lawyer starves until a second lawyer in the town opens an office, and then both lawyers get rich. The four decades of a flow of money into the Racial Harmony Complex is an enormous temptation to them to stir up that racial conflict. It is a Pay-off Industrial Complex.

Sherrod: "I don't think [Breitbart]'s interested in seeing anyone get past it because I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery."Sherrod: "[Fox] would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

And, she said all that after she claimed she had gotten beyond black versus right. Yeah, right.

Considering the Shirley Sherrod interview barrage that took place last Thursday, to not see Sherrod on television Sunday morning sends a clear signal the mainstream media no longer feels allowing the public to get to know the real Shirley Sherrod advances their agenda.Last week, Charles Krauthammer pointed out that while Sgt. Crowley got a beer summit after Obama merely (and mistakenly) said he “acted stupidly,” Shirley Sherrod got just a seven-minute phone call after she was forced to resign. The White House and the Obama Administration who hastily relieved her of her position were already keeping her at arms length, and now the mainstream media is too.

Well, possibly. Shirley was edging towards some hard to defend statements (Breibart wants blacks back in slavery.) But it's also possible Sherrod decided that a low profile is in her own best interest. She has a lot of leverage right now over the administration. Why blow it at the talk shows, in a format where she has little experience and probably won't be at their best.

Considering the number of times Obama and his surrogates have already played the race card against conservatives I'm not sure that having more blacks in positions of power will do much to cause him to trip over the racial issues. What would help is if he and his surrogates didn't contantly play the race card.Problem solved.

Dowd ends by recommending that Obama hire Shirley Sherrod for a newly created position called "Director of Black Outreach."

Dowd is always big on her junk about whoever Dowd proclaims as a victim, like Saint Cindy Sheehan, is a person made into the highest purity by victimhood, with unlimited moral superiority over others.

Dowd rubbish.

Saint Shirley barely had her victimhood established and empathetic females cooing for her deserving a SCOTUS spot or the Nobel Peace Prize before Shirley was smoking herself out as a liberal activist. She thought an apology from Black Messiah was improper...well, because he is a black man and inspiring...And right on cue, calling people who oppose Obamacare "racists".

Consider that Condi Rice was in a church that was bombed and kids were killed who were friends of hers when she was 5 or 6 years old and she was able to get past all that and lead a productive and successful life. I find that this woman rather tries to make the world feel sorry for her and do things for her. Not a pretty picture at all. At some point when you are an adult it is up to you whether you make it on your own by being responsible or if you just fall back into the swamp and let someone take care of you. Shirley obviously is in the let somebody take care of her and make it all go away mode and at her age that is rather sad IMNSHO. A real adult would have gotten past the past by this time.

mesquito said... Sure, but this White House is nowhere near as white as Journolist.==================No, but just as many liberal Jews there.Though Journolist is considerably behind in "Obama's sort of people". And of course that is not blacks, but Ivy League law illuminaries. Preferably Haaaahvaud!

Dick: Nice try, but Condi Rice is not a black person, or at least not officially, since she is a conservative not to mention a classical musician. She doesn't count. Ditto Clarence Thomas despite having one of the most incredible personal stories of anyone in a position of importance in America. I could go on, but I think you see what I mean. The only real black people are Democrats, preferably with a grievance.

I think with Obama "black people" are now officially fully on the class bandwagon and will feel that divide just as white people always have. IOW, just because your leader is the same color as you, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to hear you/feel your pain, etc.

Maureen didn't mention Michelle except in passing as part of Obama. Odd, for her.

Don't plant taters and don't plant cotton. The real money is in raising and harvesting racial grievances. Well, the rural black poor in the South really did have a tough row to hoe, and if they got some undeserved money from the Pigford settlement, more power to them. Our government has spent money on dumber projects and less deserving recipients......If Sherrod's backstory truly does pan out, I would be inclined to give her a little slack. She doesn't sound like a bad woman, but she certainly turns up the amp to 11 on her resentments. I don't object to her anger. I object to the fact that she angrily claims that she has reached some higher plane above anger.....And as part of my overall malaise, I object to the fact that no one on the left, like for instance Modo, has called her on what are, in fact, some inflamnatory and hyperbolic statements. It takes two to blow out a back disc in a rope pulling contest.

I remember thinking when he started his run that he might not have the same cultural background and understanding as Americans who are the descendants of African slaves. Imagine my surprise to see the same meme pop up in Dowd's column.

It seems like a real put down when an Irish American knows more about being African American than Obama does.

Just for starters, and a lot more places that I've already pointed out. NO Where, in any SCOTUS decision, or US statute does it define Natural Born Citizen (eligible to be POTUS) as anything less than one born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents. In due time....

AST said... "I remember thinking when he started his run that he might not have the same cultural background and understanding as Americans who are the descendants of African slaves. Imagine my surprise to see the same meme pop up in Dowd's column"

And that is exactly the rationale behind the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the POTUS. It is an ancient Natural Law concept that a citizenry should be led by one of their own, an indigenous citizen (born from within the citizenry), i.e born in the US of US citizens parents. Laurence Tribe even unwittingly told the truth (Liberals often do that) when he defined it as "one born within a nation's territory AND ALLEGIANCE". If it was simply one born in the US he would not have to say, "within allegiance". Allegiance comes to a newborn through it's parents, i.e born in the US of US Citizen parents. It is a security requirement, designed to assure the highest possibility of attachment and allegiance in the Commander in Chief. Obama has shown neither allegiance or attachmant. As a matter of fact he lied before the whole world when he swore to protect the Constitution that he is knowingly breaking by just being President.

"Cedarford -- What do you hope to accomplish with your anti-Semitic rants here? You are only going to turn people on the fence away."

C-fudd's antisemitism serves a very useful purpose - it helps him forget about his day job at the glory hole before he goes home to his flophouse room to eat his beefaroni dinner and then masturbate himself to sleep.

If you think Fudd is worried about convincing anyone "on the fence" unless they are on the fence about Jews you're nuts. This is *all* Fudd has ever done, he's been ranting this stuff for years (scroll down to #51):

He is no more a pricipled conservative than Pat Buchanan, who advocated government intervention in layoffs to promote his 1992 Presidential vanity campaign (putting him to the left of BO if you're keeping score). Similarly, Fudd has pimped the Chicoms here. He is a classic case of APD - antisemitic personality disorder. Antisemites are invariably nitwits, misfucks and born losers who don't have the balls to own up to their own failures and incompetencies so they blame everything on da Joooos.

Mick -- You keep citing those cases. Please demonstrate by showing us what the cases say.

Incidentally, It is an ancient Natural Law concept that a citizenry should be led by one of their own, an indigenous citizen (born from within the citizenry) -- that's truly hilarious to anyone who knows anything about history, particularly given the newness of both the concepts of citizenry and nation-states.

You are a sad, silly person. You will never get what you want. It's not going to happen. Don't you realize that you are doing far more harm than good to the effort to defeat Obama politically? No sane moderate in Ohio is going to be swayed by you. Quite the opposite.

You should at least have the decency to stay out of the threads that don't happen to have anything at all to do your with birther fantasies.

Ann, the forum you're hosting here and your judicious comments (and non-comments) are an oasis of rationality in this increasingly depressing and irrational affair. Howard Dean's remarks yesterday on the Sunday Fox show and Maureen Dowd's and Frank Rich's columns are sending me around that "bend" they sometimes speak about.

The Venus (1814) Only 27 years after ratification of the USC and staffed by Justices (including J. Marshall) who witnessed the Revolutionary War:

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on page 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"

Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."

Natural Law is our Common Law of international relations (see A1S8C10 (law of nations)

Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeats the same passage as Minor verbatum.

In Perkins v. Elg (1934), Ms. Elg was a "Natural Born Citizen"since she was born in Brooklyn of US citizen (naturalized) parents

Mr. Steinkauler was born in the US of US Citizen parents and was deemd Natural Born Citizen, "with the ability to become POTUS one day"

Mr. Bohn, born in the US of Resident alien parents (not sojourners or illegal aliens, or non residents) was an "American citizen".

There I spoon fed it to you, and there is much more documentation that the founders idea of Natural Born Citizen was a concept of Natural Law expressed by Vattel and others before him. The concept of Citizenry and Nation states was contemplated by Plato. Your sense of logic tells me that you are not really a conservative at all, especially if you are OK w/ as serious a violation of the USC as this. Your relativism is a dead giveaway. I will continue to educate. You are so scared of the "birther" epithet, hatched by Journolist, that you would allow an ineligible non allegiant POTUS. The truth sets me free, and the "birther epithet has no effect, I am showing you Obama's Kryptonite. In due time...

No one is going to remove Obama over the birther issue, even if it is proven in bright bold letters.

In fact, an Impeachment vote over Obama's origin would be a GIFT for him now."

Really? it doesn't matter that the POTUS himself is knowingly violating the eligibility requirement of the USC? That's a good one. Impeachment is not the constitutional avenue to remove a putative president on ineligibility, Quo Warranto is. Your lack of logic, along with relativist argument tell me that you are not really a conservative, beholden to the Constitution at all. I have proven beyond a doubt that this POTUS is ineligible, yet the relativist say that it doesn't matter. It will take a critical mass of an educated citizenry, or maybe journalists and the courts will abandon the Usurper as his numbers tank. In due time...

@Mick, you don't get it. It's all part of the plan. Shortly after a Republican is inaugurated in January 2013 we will suddenly learn that you are right, and Barack Obama should never have been President. Then the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that all of the bills he signed into law are invalid and have to be reenacted. But both houses of Congress will by then be in Republican hands, as will the Presidency, so we'll be able to dump the messes he's made without having to formally repeal them.

Oh so if someone mugged you in front of 50 bystanders it's not really a crime unless one of them come forward? Your failure of logic tells me that you are no friend of the US Constitution. While the faux conservatives (and supposed constitutionalists) whine and complain about the Usurper's policies, he runs roughshod over you pushing through his agenda. All while you hold the Usurper's kryptonite and refuse to use it. Critical mass for his removal will be reached, in due time.

@Derrick Brown, well I did a pretty fair amount of googling. Once you know that they're husband and wife, it's easy to find confirmation of that fact. Discovering it without knowing it in advance is a bit harder.

Meanwhile, I assert that her husband's role in civil rights 40+ years ago do not give her a pass for her own actions in 1986, much less 2010.

Big Mike said... @Mick, you don't get it. It's all part of the plan. Shortly after a Republican is inaugurated in January 2013 we will suddenly learn that you are right, and Barack Obama should never have been President. Then the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that all of the bills he signed into law are invalid and have to be reenacted. But both houses of Congress will by then be in Republican hands, as will the Presidency, so we'll be able to dump the messes he's made without having to formally repeal them.

Now shut up or you'll ruin everything!"

I don't care about the mechanizations of either party. Both parties put ineligible Non Natural Born Citizens on the ballot. The Usurper needs to be ousted NOW to prevent any more damage to the Constitution, and yes when that happens his appointments (like SCOTUS) and everything he signed will become null and void. I don't understand why you would want to wait.

@Mick. I was being facetious. I certainly hope no one is actually thinking along those lines!

For the record, I don't think either man was qualified to be President of the United States, but not because of citizenship issues -- neither had the executive experience needed to run the Executive Branch of the federal government. As we are seeing.

"For the record, I don't think either man was qualified to be President of the United States, but not because of citizenship issues -- "

Neither candidate was a constitutionally eligible Natural Born Citizen. McCain was born in Colon, Panama, and was born with dual allegiance, and Obama (if born in HI.) was ADMITTEDLY born a British subject and sual US citizen (his father was Kenyan). As such neither one was a Natural Born Citizen. I have no interest in party mechanizations, especially since the Republicans ran their own ineligible candidate, and Cheney failed to stop Obama at the Electoral College. They are all committing treason. Both parties are 2 sides of the same coin, and only seek to divide and conquer, accumulating more power over We the People.

Seven Machos said... "None of those cases say anything remotely close to what you allege."

They are direct quotes of dicta from the case! All the cases are about citizenship issues, so the dicta of the cases explore all aspects of citizenship. CONSISTANTLY (like EVERY time), they cite Vattel for the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. NEVER do they say that a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than one BORN IN THE US OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS.SO now you are just in denial (facts are funny things). Again WHERE does it say (SCOTUS or Statute) that anyone born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? NO ONE here has provided an answer.

Seven Machos said... "Dumb ass -- Those cases simply do not say what you claim they say about citizenship. They do not define "natural."

This issue has never been litigated. No judge is going to do what you want. Get over it. You are a loser who is going to lose."

Wow, your Alinskyan response mirrors that of the Obot operatives, so i'll have to view you through that lens. It has nothing to do with me. What, you can't read where it says the "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS ARE THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF CITIZEN PARENTS". It directly cites Vattel. So now you have completely outed yourself. Of course it hasn't been legislated. That doesn't mean that there was no understanding of the term, which is expressed in these cases, and not expressed as anything less than Born in the US of US Citizen Parents IN ANY CASE.

Dowd is hard to take. She tries to paint complete irrelevant insanity as something thought out. Personally, I don't care what the condition of birth is for those around him or who he hires, just as long as he'd cut three agencies and positions for every one they even think about adding.Are white statists different than black ones, or, for Ms Dowd, gay ones?